INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS OF THE WHOLE (ICW)

The ICW met all day yesterday and was able to complete discussion
on the Secretariat's non-papers on goals and clusters.

Cluster 4: [Population Distribution,] Internal and International
Migration: Delegates made only a few comments on Part A,
"Population distribution and internal migration." Colombia, Morocco
and the Philippines stressed the need to focus on and to stem
rural-urban migration. Switzerland, Malaysia and the ILO supported
the Secretariat's reference to decentralization as a means of
managing urban development. The ILO and Australia stressed the need
to maintain a balance between urban and rural development.

The section on international migration generated much more
discussion. Canada and Australia stressed the importance of
clarifying the difference between voluntary and forced migration in
the document. Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Australia and the Russian
Federation stated that there is a need to examine migration that is
caused by lack of economic opportunities and the necessity of job
creation in the countries of origin. Australia and Argentina
specifically mentioned the relationship between agricultural
subsidies and migration. Brazil commented that the text is "timid"
and does not stress the causes of the present massive flows of
undocumented migrants from poorer countries to richer countries.

Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, France and Austria suggested that the
Secretariat should incorporate recommendations from the European
Population Conference on the issue of international migration.
Likewise, Mali stated that the relevant recommendations from the
Dakar Conference should also be incorporated.

Switzerland, the Holy See, Morocco and France stressed the need to
address the issues of integration, multiculturalism, and racism as
well as the need to safeguard the human rights of migrants. The US
and Brazil mentioned the problems associated with illegal and
undocumented migrants. Argentina commented on the need for an
exchange of information between countries that receive immigrants
as well as countries that suffer from considerable migratory flows.

Argentina, the Philippines and Ecuador all referred to the
financial impact of repatriation and the loss of income sent home
to family members from migrant workers. To help alleviate the
"brain drain," the Philippines encouraged the creation of a
programme whereby a country receiving migrants could promise the
country of origin some sort of a compensatory measure, such as the
exchange of scholars, transfer of technology, or a temporary
repatriation with guaranteed return so the professionals could
share their knowledge with others in their native country.

In the section on strategies, delegates made the following
recommendations: the first strategy should also include reducing
pressures for South-South migration (Malaysia, Canada and
Australia); the fourth strategy should include protecting the right
to seek asylum (Canada and Australia); and the seventh strategy
should include providing adequate assistance to refugees, including
women, children and aged parents (Canada, Australia and Poland).

Cluster 5: Resource allocation, resource mobilization, the role
of governments and other sectors: A number of common themes
emerged during the discussion of this cluster. India, the G-77,
Brazil and the Women's Caucus agreed that increased attention
should be given to population activities at the national level.
There was also agreement that national social sector expenditures
should rise by 20-30%. Iran pointed out that targets for social
spending should take into account the varying capacities of
individual countries, especially those in the South. Many countries
such as the US, the UK and Canada called for greater partnership
between governments and NGOs in the implementation of population
activities. The UK suggested that the final document should commit
an increased flow of resources to NGOs. Several countries also
highlighted the need for increased expenditures in family planning
and reproductive health in general. While some governments fund the
health sector in very broad terms, reproductive health often does
not appear in national budgets. As a result, this makes it
difficult to assess what is being spent in this area. Numerous
developing countries, including the G-77 and Iran, called on the
international community to clarify its commitments to population
funding. Sweden, in particular, called on the industrialized
countries to do more in this regard, but also suggested that
regional funding figures would be more realistic than global
funding targets. Countries, such as Morocco expressed hope that
military expenditures, in part, could be redirected to cover
population activities. This was echoed by the Women's Caucus, who
added that increased sources of funding could be mobilized by
reform of structural adjustment programmes and debt relief. Canada
pointed out that it does not target its ODA to specific programmes
or sectors.

Several countries questioned the appropriateness of the Amsterdam
Declaration as the basis for determining global population funding
targets. The Holy See noted that the Amsterdam Declaration was only
signed by 79 countries, and as such, did not reflect an
international consensus.

Additional issues: The Chair provided delegations with the
opportunity to raise issues not covered by the five clusters.
Canada and Norway mentioned the need to strengthen reference to
data collection and analysis by incorporating recommendations from
the relevant expert group meetings. Norway also called for the
incorporation of substantive and operational research on fertility
changes and life-saving measures. Canada also mentioned the need to
reflect the needs and contributions of indigenous peoples, wherever
appropriate.

Goals for 2015: All delegations supported the general idea
of setting targets in the Cairo document. A number of delegations
suggested that the 20-year time frame, as suggested by the
Secretary-General, is not the only one that should be considered.
Brazil, for example, suggested that a time frame of 10 years may be
more appropriate. The G-77 suggested that intermediate reviews
every five years could be carried out to assess whether the goals
are realistic or not. A number of delegations, including the G-77,
the Holy See, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Malaysia mentioned
the need for both qualitative and quantitative goals. Pakistan,
Sweden, the G-77, Uganda, Burundi and Zaire all pointed out that
targets should be either regional or country-specific. Mention was
also made of the importance of avoiding the notion of coercion in
the setting of population goals. Delegates also suggested that the
Secretariat consider related goals that have been articulated in
other UN fora.

Some countries suggested the inclusion of additional goals. For
example, the US proposed goals regarding the unequal treatment of
boys and girls; maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion; and
teenage pregnancy. The Holy See suggested goals to deal with
socio-economic development; ageing and the elderly; human resource
development; and job creation.